Complaint filed on: 27-05-2010<br /> Disposed on: 15-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.1204/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 15th JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainants: - 1. Sri.Gopalakrishna <br /> S/o. Sri.Muralidar Kulakarni, <br /> Aged about 34 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.102,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 2. Miss. Priyanka Mishra, <br /> D/o. Sri.Arun Kumar Mishra <br /> Aged about 27 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.104,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 3. Sri. Mohamed Masood Alam, <br /> S/o. Sri.Raza Mohamed Khamer, <br /> Aged about 31 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.202,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 4. Sri.Abilash Vijayan, <br /> S/o. Sri.G.Vijayan, <br /> Aged about 30 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.203,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 5. Sri.Penugonde Srinivasa <br /> S/o. late Sri.P.Deshikachar, <br /> Aged about 51 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.301,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 6. Sri.Bupendra Singh Kushwah, <br /> S/o. Paramsingh Kushwah, <br /> Aged about 31 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.304,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 7. Sri.Akshay Kothandan, <br /> S/o. Sri.K.Kothandan, <br /> Aged about 30 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.305,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 8. Sri.Ramnath Bhat, <br /> S/o. Narayan B.Bhat, <br /> Aged about 27 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.405,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> 9. Sri.G.Sathya Murthy, <br /> S/o. Sri.V.Govinda Rajan, <br /> Aged about 58 years, <br /> Residing at Flat No.403,<br /> Dreamz Kutera Apartments,<br /> No.23, Balaji Layout,<br /> Kodigehalli, <br /> Sahakara nagar post, <br /> Bangalore-94 <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> <br /> 1. N.D.Ravi <br /> S/o. Sri.Dorai Swamy Raju,<br /> Aged about 41 years, <br /> Proprietor,<br /> M/s. Home Concept,<br /> No.27, 1st floor, 7th cross,<br /> Malleswaram,<br /> Bangalore-03 <br /> 2. Smt.Kavitha.K.,<br /> W/o. Sri.Kamalesh,<br /> Aged about 47 years,<br /> Residing at No.121, <br /> Sriniketh, No.19/8, <br /> M S R College Road,<br /> 2nd cross, Gokul,<br /> Bangalore-64 <br /> 3. M/s. Home Concept<br /> No.27, 1st Floor, 7th cross,<br /> Malleswaram<br /> Bangalore-03<br /> Represented by its proprietor<br /> Sri.N.D.Ravi<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER REGARDING ADMISSION<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainants regarding admission of this complaint which has been filed by nine complaints jointly against the opposite parties for a direction to Ops to provide bore well water, BWSSB water and Sewage facilities, Generator backup electricity to the apartment including the lift, common lighting etc by substituting the existing sub-standard lift with a qualitative one as per clause 21 of the joint development agreement dated 5-2-2007. The counsel for the complainants admitted that, these complainants purchased their respective flats under separate registered sale deeds dated 17-10-2007, 7-2-2007, 31-5-2007, 31-1-2008, 4-9-2008, 7-1-2008, 23-2-2008, 10-12-2007 and 21-8-2008 and that the 2nd and 6th complainants purchased their flats through sale deeds dated 3-10-2009 and 11-12-2009 and possession of the flats were physically delivered to them under registered sale deeds. But the counsel for the complainants argued that, the Ops have not provided the facilities sought in the complaint as per the agreement dated 5-2-2007. We find that after completion of construction, the complainants have taken delivery of possession of their respective flats, and they have occupied them. Therefore, once the sale deeds came to be executed and possession was delivered to the complainants they cannot go back to the terms and conditions of sale agreement stating that, those facilities agreed are not provided. Suppose those facilities were not provided by the vendor, the complainants could not have got title of the flats transferred to them and take possession of the flats. In the sale deeds specific recitals are made with regard to the facilities provided to the flats. It is not the complainants case that possession of the flats were taken subject to the condition of completing further works or for providing other facilities. When physical possession was delivered and the complaints without questioning anything accepted the flats kept quite for all these years until this complaint is presented. It is also not their case that, after sale deeds are executed and possession was delivered, there was any further agreement or under taking by Ops to provide those facilities. Therefore, when absolute physical possession was delivered to the complainants, they cannot after laps of years come with these allegations on deficiency seeking reliefs against the opposite parties under the Act. Once title of flats and possession was passed on to the complainants, in the absence of any contract or under taking the complaint deficiency cannot be maintained. <br /> <br /> 2. The learned counsel appearing for the complainants arguing that though title and possession of flat was transferred to the complainants but still the complainants if found any deficiency can file complaint against the vendor and in support of his arguments relied on decisions reported in (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 345, I (1998) CPJ 96 (NC), National Commission and II (2000) CPJ 418 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. On going through all these decisions, we do not find the Hon’ble Supreme court and the Hon’ble State commission and National Commission having held that the complaint is maintainable after title to flat was transferred and physical possession of their flat was also delivered and if any deficiency was found at later stage after lapse of time in the absence of any agreement or undertaking to provide additional facilities or to cure deficiency. Therefore these decisions, in our view do not help the complainants. Hence the complainants, in our view, in the absence of continuation or existing relationship of consumers and service provider is and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at this stage of admission. Hence, we pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15th July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />